Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I will.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very important contributions during the development of this legislation and his excellent statement on the floor. I am prepared to yield back the time, if my colleague is prepared to yield back. I think also for any amendments, can we request that we have the opportunity for 2 minutes of debate on any amendment that is going to be offered to be evenly divided. Furthermore, I ask unanimous consent that after the first vote, the time on each succeeding amendment be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if it is all right with the Senator from Wyoming, we would indicate the first vote then would start at 6:30. I see the leader. That gives people at least some notice, if that would be agreeable.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with the first vote to begin at 6:30 then, we have 8 remaining minutes. I am glad to divide that with the Senator from Wyoming. Does the Senator from Alabama wish to be--I would be glad to divide that time with the Senator from Alabama, if he wishes to speak on his amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that we divide the time, the 8 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 4 minutes. Earlier in the day, we had a good exchange with the Senator from Alabama. I pointed out that Alabama, under this legislation, gets an additional $442 million over the next 5 years in grant aid. My own State of Massachusetts gets $317 million. Alabama does exceedingly well, and that is under the need-based provisions of this program, the need-based provisions of this program. The Senator from Alabama has raised I think three important points, and they should be addressed. First of all, the loan forgiveness is applicable to those who are on the Direct Loan Program or those who are on the Pell Grant Program. That is spelled out on page 14 of the legislation. That is spelled out on page 14. Secondly, there is a cap--spelled out on page 30, that requires the borrower's annual adjusted gross income or annual earnings to be less than or equal to $65,000 for eligibility. So if they make more than $65,000, there is no loan forgiveness. So this is for those individuals who are working--the working middle class and the working poor. Third, we believe, as this chart points out, that there is a value in terms of public service employment. We have heard the announcement about the COMPETE Act and about those who are going to go to conference on the COMPETE Act. That bill addresses math and science education and many other important areas. Try to find a good math teacher to serve the public schools of Boston--it's extremely difficult--a good science teacher, a good chemistry teacher to work in a high-need school. Try to find individuals who are going to work with the disabled population. Increasingly, we are finding challenges in meeting the needs of our elderly population so they can have independent living. We have listed the range of what we consider to be public service fields in this bill, and it is extensive. There is enormous need in America. There is an enormous desire of young people to work in those areas. The principal barrier is their indebtedness. They know that if we provide some help and assistance, which this legislation does, to provide some forgiveness, if they work 10 years--10 years--10 years they have to work in these areas in order to be eligible for some forgiveness. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Alabama wants to eliminate. I have mentioned many times, and in traveling around to schools and colleges in my State of Massachusetts, the number of young people who want to do public service and work and make a contribution to their community, to their local communities, to their State or to the country. We were reminded earlier today by the excellent statement of the Senator from Maryland the difficulty in getting law enforcement people to work in many of the areas in the communities in Baltimore. There are important public responsibilities and services. We have a generation of young people who are prepared to do it. The principal thing that is blocking them is the limitation on their salaries. As we have seen, this chart gives you a pretty good example. A starting salary for teachers is $35,000, and the loan debt is $18,000. What this will do is provide some relief annually, up to $732, but if that teacher is a starting teacher in Massachusetts, at the end of 10 years of working with students in the public school system, they are going to get some loan forgiveness. They are going to get a $10,000 forgiveness. This is not taxpayer money, Mr. President; this is the lenders' money. I hope the amendment will not be accepted. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Wyoming has an amendment we are going to hopefully accept on a voice vote, if it is the way I understand it to be.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this has nothing to do with the underlying legislation. Young children in this country want this legislation, and this amendment has nothing to do with it. The pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, time has not been all yielded to ask for the yeas and nays. Point of order. Is it in order to ask for the yeas and nays on whether the amendment is passed?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I make a point of order. I withhold that. I have a minute, do I not?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I do not know what bothers the Senator from South Carolina, being antiworker, anti-union. We know this is the most antiworker, anti-union administration. This has nothing to do with education. We see what is happening over on this side. Slow the process down so we cannot vote on Iraq. Slow the process down so we cannot vote on energy. Slow the process down so we cannot vote on giving the young people of this country an opportunity to go to college. When is it going to end? The students of America and the families of America ought to know exactly what is happening out here on the floor of the Senate. This has nothing to do with education. It is an insult to the workers' committees of this country. We know this repeals existing law--existing law, which permits, if an employer wants to have a card check, respect for it, can go along. He is repealing that provision. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane, and I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what in the world does the Republican leader have against this legislation? The legislation we have here before the Senate passed 17 to 3. The authorizing provision that changes policy was virtually unanimous. Young people all over the country are looking in on the Senate. This is about the future of this next generation, their hopes and their dreams. It is about our country and being able to compete in the world. It is about the quality of our Armed Forces, about getting well-trained, well-educated young people. It is about our institutions, whether they are going to be functioning and working. Why can't we go ahead and vote on this legislation? We were here for 2 days waiting for different amendments on education and few of them came. Why in the world are you holding up this legislation that means so much to the future of our young people? We are prepared to vote. We didn't have amendments over here on our side. We want to get this legislation going ahead. We are looking forward to the reauthorization debate for next week, and we are looking forward to getting something worthy of this institution. In the 45 years I have been in the Senate under the leadership of Stafford of Vermont, of Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, of the Members whom we have had here--we have had true commitment. Why are we disrupting this effort?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have moved along on the issues in this bill and have heard from many of our colleagues. We've had a good debate and discussion. Most of the members of our Education Committee and Human Resources Committee have spoken about this measure with very considerable knowledge and understanding and awareness and made a very strong and convincing case. I think we have had very good opportunity to talk in considerable length and detail about this proposal. I am going to do a brief summary of this legislation in a moment and then we will hopefully have our leader come to the floor with a unanimous consent request so that we may find a pathway to move toward the reauthorization bill, which is very important. The bill we're debating now--the reconciliation bill--deals with a key part of our education system; that is, the funding that is the lifeblood of our higher education system. But the authorization provisions are enormously important. We have worked very carefully together on the committee and we stand in strong support of those proposals. They deal with some very important matters. One is the simplification of the FAFSA, the free application for federal student aid. That might not sound like a very important undertaking, but it is extraordinarily important. When you try and go through the older application, as many students have, or families have, they find it virtually impossible to understand. We give great credit to my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi and Senator Reed for their work. We also have provisions that deal with the issue of rising college costs. We deal with the funding of students, we deal with addressing the needs of the neediest students in this country. We have also provided opportunity for the elimination or the forgiveness of indebtedness for those who are going to work in public service areas for 10 years. That is very important. In the authorization legislation, we have provisions we think can be useful and helpful in terms of the overall cost of education. We support and encourage colleges to publish their tuition and fees, so that there is greater transparency and so that students and families have the knowledge to weigh their options. So that is enormously important. The other part of the authorization, which is absolutely called for, are what we call the sunshine provisions, the ethical provisions. We reform the student loan industry, so that it works better for students--not banks. What we have seen over the course of our hearings and investigations are instance after instance where those who were involved in the lending aspect of the student loan programs at colleges and universities, and also in the programs themselves, have abused the system. We've seen instances where lenders give gifts, such as trips and performance tickets, in order to gain preferential treatment. That's unacceptable, and we're working to stop those kinds of abuses. We have recommendations in this proposal to deal with that very serious problem. The members of our committee are very strong in terms of their support for the reauthorization. There are other provisions in the bill as well, but the most important are the ones I have identified. There is strong bipartisan support for those. We know there are members who wish to address some of those issues in some way. We are glad to have debate and discussion on those matters. But it is our desire, certainly my desire, I know Senator Enzi's desire, that we try and move that authorization proposal in a short period of time. We will have a consent agreement on this shortly. Hopefully, with that consent agreement, we will be able to conclude the debate on the reconciliation provisions and yield back the time we have, and start the process of considering any of the outstanding amendments. Certainly, the Senator from Alabama's amendment is a pending amendment and other members have talked about other amendments. I will address that issue in a few moments. To give a very quick summary of what we have tried to do over the period of these past weeks in the area of higher education, we have effectively taken $17 billion from lender subsidies in order to give it to students, and we have deficit reduction distribution of close to $1 billion. This chart gives a pretty good summation about what this legislation is all about. People who are watching this program, certainly the Members, now, after we have had a good discussion and debate about the program, have an awareness of what this program is about. It is a historic increase in need-based grant aid, the most important increase in need-based grant aid since the GI bill in World War II. This Nation reached out to so many of the young service men and women after World War II, and provided them an opportunity to go on to college and earn a bachelor's degree. What a difference it made for this country in terms of building the middle class, and in giving hope and opportunity to an entire generation. As we have pointed out time and time again, most economists believe for every dollar that was invested in that GI Bill, the World War II GI bill, $7 was returned to the Federal Treasury. We believe that to be true. This is something the American people ought to keep in mind. In this legislation, the $17 billion is not coming from the taxpayers. It is money that is recovered from the lenders in the student loan program. So we have a historic increase in the need-based grant aid in this bill--an increase of over $700 next year alone for the maximum Pell grant. We have better repayment options that cap the borrowers' monthly loan payments to 15 percent of their discretionary income, discretionary income, I underline, because that is sensitive to individuals, size of their family, and we are responsive to that. This takes into consideration the size of their family, which we think is enormously important. We have loan forgiveness for borrowers in public service jobs. We had an excellent debate and discussion earlier in the afternoon with the Senator from Maryland on that program, who told us enormously moving stories about her own life and others that she knew about. This is a very important provision, the loan forgiveness, for borrowers in public service jobs. We have great need for more professionals in public service areas, and we have scores of young people who are interested in entering these fields. Visit any college, as I have, and talk to the young people, and the interest of the young people being involved in local community service programs, State programs or Federal programs in public service is extraordinary. I think it is the highest level of interest and involvement I have seen, that I can remember in memory. The loan forgiveness provision in this bill helps address the enormous explosion of student loan debt we've seen recently, which closes out opportunities to attend college for far too many Americans. We have gone through this in some detail during the course of the debate. We provided some protection for working students by not penalizing their earnings. So often individuals are trying to go out and work, they are hard pressed in terms of their resources that are available to them and to their families. They go out and earn some extra money. What happens, in a number of instances, is they exceed the provisions of existing law and work themselves out of some need-based aid. We address that issue. The students are going to go out and work and work hard to be able to buy their books, to be able to afford their living expenses. We make sure they are not going to be penalized for their hard work. We offer longer deferment periods for borrowers in economic hardship. We also have additional consideration for those who have served in the Armed Forces of this country. We had a good review of that program with Senator Murray late yesterday afternoon, a very important additional kind of protection for our servicemen, particularly those who are on active duty and find out, as we know, there are increasing extensions of their duty. We wish to make sure those individuals who are involved in defending this country are not bothered or harassed by those who are trying to collect their debt. So this provides these benefits at no cost to the taxpayer by reforming the student loan industry so it works for students, not banks. This is not additional money from taxpayers for these programs. This comes from the lenders, from the banks, changing the way that this whole program works to benefit the students in a very important way, and in a way, quite frankly, that actually isn't going to cost the lending agencies that much profit. Even with this particular proposal, we have seen the various CBO reviews, we have these financial officer statements we have reviewed. These lending agencies, they are going to do very well. We reviewed some of the documents of Sallie Mae itself, which pointed out the size of their earnings, which are going to be substantial, even with the inclusion of this legislation. So we do not need to have crocodile tears for the lending agencies. We ought to even strengthen those programs for the students of this country. So this is the broad form and the broad shape of the legislation. When we talk about the need based aid, what we are talking about basically are the lowest-income families. Pell grants assist 5 million of the neediest students, 5 million of them who are attending our universities. This is very important help and assistance. What we see is, as they take advantage of this program, it means they may be able to borrow less. By borrowing less, they have less monthly payments and this frees them to be able to focus on school, so that students during their breaks and during their free hours are going to be talking about their subject matter and about the books they have read, and their classes and teachers, rather than constantly worrying about the payment of their debt. So this is a very major aspect of how we have allocated a major part of the $17 billion. We have, as every person knows who is in this Chamber, and every family knows who is watching this, an explosion of costs both at private colleges and public colleges. We know many students who go to these public colleges and the private colleges are young men and women of extraordinary ability and talent; and many of them are also hard pressed financially. What we have tried to do, although we have not done it up to now, is to keep grant aid up with the incredible increase we have seen in the cost. We made a downpayment on that with our increase in the Pell grant maximum to $4,310 earlier this year. This bill goes even further, and raises the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year and to $5,400 by 2011. As I mentioned earlier, we have made some recommendations in the education authorization bill to try and deal with costs in the future. We have seen those costs go up. This is a very important chart. Each year, nearly half of the lowest- income students, who are talented students, cannot go to a 4-year college because of cost. We know that 400,000 students don't attend a 4-year college each year because of cost. These are young people who could effectively gain entrance into college but cannot go because of the limitations of income. This is a great loss for this Nation, a great loss for those individuals. It is an incredible loss in terms of our Nation. We tried, with the need-based aid and assistance in this bill, to provide help. We tried through Senator Murkowski's amendment to provide the mechanisms in the States to reach out to these students to assist them, to motivate them so they will go on to college, and explain to students the complicated financial aid process. That is enormously important. With the work of Senator Enzi and Senator Reed, we have simplified the form for application for federal aid into two pages compared to the current form's eight or nine pages, which are hardly understandable for many parents and students. This is what is happening. This is why we are seeing one of our candidates, Senator Edwards, talking about the two Americas. It is right here at the breaking point where we find out that half of the college-ready students, which means that they have the academic capability to go on to college, do not do so because of the cost. These are the facts. This is the need. This is another way of expressing a similar point; that is, more students must take out loans to finance their education. In 1993, less than half of all graduates had to take out loans. But in 2004, nearly two-thirds had to take out loans to finance their education--an enormous increase. Students are borrowing more, and this is the indebtedness. I see our leader on the floor. Knowing his responsibility, I would be glad to withhold and make whatever comments I might have after any comments he would want to make.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the leader for his comments and also for scheduling this proposal. It is a clear indication of the priority this legislation has. We are very grateful that we have been able to, hopefully, complete this whole proposal in terms of the funding and the authorization.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use. We continue the debate and discussion on the legislation that has been reported out of our Education Committee, which has strong bipartisan support. This legislation is being considered under a time limit, but certainly there is sufficient time to debate any of the kinds of issues or questions dealing with education this morning. We will have the two votes, as the leader has pointed out, at noontime. Senator Enzi and I are both here ready to discuss, debate, and work with any of our colleagues on this legislation. But we are very strong believers in this legislation. This is the largest assistance to middle-income and working families that we have had since the end of World War II and the GI Bill. This is very substantial help and assistance. I think all of us, when we go home to our States, hear from families who talk about the increased cost of school, the increased cost of tuition, and the increased cost and burden associated with going to college. We are also very much aware of the necessity of providing additional educational opportunities that are so essential for families, so essential for communities, so essential for States, countries, and the United States in a world economy. Education is the equivalent, effectively, of hope and opportunity for the young people of this country. We are making a strong downpayment to help and assist the sons and daughters of working families. My State of Massachusetts is blessed with many fine schools and colleges. About 80 percent of all those who go on to college get some kind of help and assistance over the course of their time they are in college, whether they go to one of our community colleges, one of our fine public colleges, or one of our fine private colleges. So when we say we are providing help and assistance, through scholarships or through Pell grants, we are making a difference in the opportunities for our fellow citizens. Our future depends on education. The future of our economy depends upon having educational opportunities. We are building on excellent legislation that was completed in the Congress earlier this year. The COMPETE Act came through our committee, with the great leadership of Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander. Our bipartisan effort gave additional focus and attention to enhancing the opportunities for young students to study math, science, engineering, and other areas that are particular needs for our country in the future. This legislation builds upon that legislation in a very important way in terms of opportunity. That is what we wish to talk about briefly again this morning. By enhancing educational opportunities, we are going to strengthen our economy, we are going to be more effective in dealing with globalization, we are going to be more effective in terms of our national security because we are going to have better trained, better equipped personnel and better technology for those who serve in our military forces. We also will equip the next generation with the ability to ensure that our democratic institutions at the local, State, and Federal levels work more effectively. So education is the key. We are proud of this legislation and the difference it will make. This legislation will provide a historic increase in the need-based grant aid. That is the enhanced help and assistance in the Pell program. We will have better repayment options that cap a borrower's monthly payment at 15 percent of their discretionary income. That means all those who are going to be out there working are never going to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income on their student loans. That is particularly important in terms of what we call the public- sector jobs, where there is an enormous need in this country--enormous need. Our society needs more teachers, more emergency management and law enforcement professionals, more public health doctors and nurses, more social workers, more librarians, more public interest lawyers, and more early childhood teachers. This bill also offers loan forgiveness program for borrowers in public service jobs: After they work as a schoolteacher for 10 years, paying no more than 15 percent of their discretionary income during that time, all their debt--all their debt--will be forgiven. These are the key elements of this legislation. We want to show what how we have tried to ensure that educational opportunity will be available to all of our fellow citizens here in America--including middle income and particularly the low income families. We know from experience the challenges that are out there. This chart gives an idea about the increases in tuition at public and private colleges. There have been enormous increases in tuition. We have tried to address that with our increase in Pell grant funds. I want to take a few moments this morning, though, to talk about the focus we have given to the Pell program. Over 5 million Americans--5 million Americans--all across this country participate in the Pell program. With the commitment we had back in 1965 when we passed the Higher Education Act, we wanted to make education available to all Americans--all Americans and we understood that those who had particular financial needs were from working families. We developed this under the leadership of Senator Pell of Rhode Island, our leader and then-chairman of the Education Committee. His name will be associated with this program for as long as it exists, along with other very worthwhile programs, including the National Endowment for the Humanities programs, the National Endowment for the Arts, and others. This chart shows the help and assistance in the Pell area. The program targets families who are generally making $50,000 or less. Individuals with moderate income still can gain some benefit, but they are not the target. Let's look at this chart here. What does it show us? It shows that too few low-income students are prepared to attend college. This shows low income, moderate income, middle income, and high income. You see that those who are completing high school in the higher numbers, they are dependent on income. You see the higher income students are prepared to attend college, and 47 percent of the lower income students are projected to be college-qualified high school students in 2004. I know these statistics are from 2000 and 2004, but we know the result is still the same. These are the figures as a result of publications last year. This shows we can have well-qualified, low-income students, but only 47 percent of them are going to be college qualified, to be able to go on to college. Once these students graduate from high school, we see what happens. Only 20 percent of them are going to be able to earn a bachelor's degree. Why is it 20 percent? The reason it is 20 percent is because of, by and large, the financial burden. So we have the lower income, moderate income, middle income, and high income. If we are going to be one country with one history and one destiny, one Nation, we have to have at least the opportunity in the areas of education; which is so basic. I think we need it in health care and other areas of public policy as well, but education is key. If we are starting off with a model where income largely determines who will be able to get the education and who will not, we have a divided Nation. If we say we want to give equal opportunity to the citizens of this Nation, we cannot have this kind of disparity. What have we done now with the proposal? We have said, for those individuals who would be eligible, as I mentioned on those first two charts, we have increased the Pell grant. This will directly help those individuals who are going to be unable to complete their education because of the funding levels. The Higher Education Access Act will build on what we started by increasing the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year--a $790 increase--and to $5,400 in 2011. We know that Pell grants have opened the door of opportunity for countless young students over the years. It is imperative for Federal and State legislatures to continue offering financial aid programs to colleges and universities across the county in order to even the playing field for the underserved and disadvantaged. It is an important targeting of resources to those children who are the neediest and need the greatest help, but also individuals who have competency and are able to gain admission to these schools and colleges. They have ability, but they don't have the financial ability. This is targeted to try and help and assist them. Now, what else are we doing for those individuals? We are going to have the loan forgiveness provisions. How does that work? You have an individual, for example, who has gotten into the grant program and then they borrow some money to complete their education. That individual wants to go on and be a schoolteacher. The annual salary in my State of Massachusetts for a teacher is $35,241. The average loan debt is $18,169. That is about the national average, and it has doubled in the last decade. So we say we are targeting these resources. Of the $18 billion we have taken from the lenders, we have close to $1 billion, that will go for deficit reduction, and we have taken the other $17 billion, a major portion of which will be used to help and assist those students who are individuals of ability, but who lack the financial help and assistance to go on to fine schools and colleges. We are giving them the bulk of the resources to help and assist them to go to the schools and the colleges. Then we say--when they graduate, they are going to have a rather sizable debt. These individuals want to give something back to the community, and we find out they want to be a schoolteacher. So if they are $18,000 in debt, how are they going to be able to pay that off? We say they are going to be starting in what is a public sector area. This is a schoolteacher in this case. They are $18,000 in debt. When we put the cap on the amounts they are going to have to repay of their debt, it is going to save them $732 a year from what they would otherwise have paid--$732 a year--if they go into public service. That is the amount, because of the 15-percent cap that we put on their annual salary. That is a big chunk of change; $732 is a big chunk of change for students just out of college. Then we say if they did this for 10 years, if they teach for 10 years, then we forgive the remainder of their debt, which is over $8,000. That debt will be forgiven. We reduce their annual yearly payment by $700 and forgive their debt by $8,000. These are individuals who are going into a profession where there is an enormous need. We need to have tens of thousands of teachers within the next decade. Now this is the chart for a teacher. I can give an example of another public service provider, and I will do that in a minute or two. But this is illustrative of what this legislation does. It is heavy in terms of the targeting, in terms of the Pell programs, and in terms of the loan forgiveness. We also have the provisions, as was brought out during the debate and the discussion, to permit these younger people to earn more when they are in various work-study programs, or working even as they are going to the universities. It used to be if they earned too much, they would lose their need-based aid because they no longer qualified. We give greater flexibility, which will encourage younger people to earn something in addition, that will maybe help them buy more books or help them buy computers. We increase the eligibility for auto-zero from $20,000 to $30,000. It doesn't sound like a great deal, but there will be further opportunities for those who are in working families to be able to participate in this Pell program. I use this example of a student who will be a public defender. I will put up the list of all of the examples. I am using the example a teacher, but the bill forgives the direct loan graduates of their debt who work for 10 years in any form of public service, including emergency management, public safety, public law enforcement and government, education, early education, and childcare. The need we have now is for teachers. This bill incentivizes people to pursue jobs in early childhood education, among others. That is a key element. If you read the great book ``From Neurons To Neighborhoods'' by Jack Shonkoff from my State of Massachusetts, it brings together all of the National Academy of Sciences evaluations for the support of children in the earliest months of their lives, let alone the earliest years, and how that helps stimulate the synapses in the child's brain, helps develop the sense of confidence, the sense of inquisitiveness, the sense of capacity for learning, for early childhood education. We have expanded those opportunities in another piece of legislation Senator Enzi and I worked on; the reauthorization of the Head Start Program. The work of public servants is so important. We have public education, early childhood education, childcare, and all the public services working with the disabled and the elderly. We know the increasing requirements so many of our parents have, in terms of being able to live independently and to live with dignity. So this bill will encourage those who want to work with the disabled and the elderly, or in public interest legal services as prosecutors of the public defense. We want our judicial system to work and to work fairly for people, to give them the kinds of protections but also give them the kinds of defense. Public school libraries, library sciences, and other public school-based service providers. Also, teaching full time at tribal colleges or universities. We find, as I am sure other Members do, when you go to the fine schools and colleges across this country--I find it in my State of Massachusetts--the amount of volunteerism that is out there among the young people. Many of them go, in my State, into the City Year program, one of the great programs of volunteerism we have had. The program has spread in this country and around the world in many respects. They go into public service programs to help and assist and volunteer at the schools and colleges in the communities. We have a wonderful small college, Stonehill College, and one of their defining aspects as a college is to help young people start nonprofit agencies. They give them help and assistance in how to start nonprofit groups. They, for example, started eight nonprofit groups to try and relieve the problems of hunger in southeastern Massachusetts. Young people want to get involved. Young people want to make a difference in people's lives. Young people want to provide service. This legislation will do more to give them the opportunity when we have areas of critical need than anything we have done in recent times. This is an area that says, look: You want to work and work in the public--you want to give something back to your community, local community, or State, if you want to do that, we are going to give you help and assistance. We are going to recognize it, and we are going to make it manageable for you to do it. We have the constant illustrations, particularly in medical schools, where the great majority of young medical students in their first year want to become general practitioners--the overwhelming majority. Then by the second year or the third year, that group is down to a handful. Why? Primarily because of student debt. They know when they get out of medical school, they too often are making decisions about their areas of specialty based on the profession that is going to permit them to pay off that student debt, rather than be able to go into a neighborhood health center and to provide help to those who need it. So we have made this as wide as we could in terms of trying to respond to that sense that is out there in our schools and colleges, in all parts of our country, urban areas and rural areas, to say: Look, if you want to give something back, we are going to make it possible. We are going to give you a greater opportunity for you to go to college, particularly if you are from working families and low-income. We are going to give you a better opportunity to do that. With the amendment of our friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, it is going to help and assist States to take many of the younger people who need help and try to give them focus and get them on the pathway to school and colleges. We are going to give that encouragement and help the States. Many States have established these kinds of nonprofit agencies that do a superb job. We have some in my own State of Massachusetts. They do a breathtaking job in encouraging people to do it. And then we have, in our authorization, the extraordinary work of Senators Enzi and Jack Reed to simplify the student loan application and permit people who don't have a lot of student advisers and extra help to be able to use a more simplified form so they can understand what it is to be able to begin to make the application for school and college. We give greater assistance there. This is all part of the efforts we have been making in our committee in terms of early education. We are going to make the changes to No Child Left Behind, and we are going to try to tie in kindergarten programs. We are going to have a seamless web so that will work more effectively, and those who go to college are going to be able to have met the initial college requirements. We want to try to do that more effectively. All that for another time. But in this legislation, we have gone in this direction. Mr. President, this is just a brief survey of what I think are the compelling aspects. We decided initially that on higher education, we had to bring in lenders. We were not sure, going back over the years, how much incentives we could provide to the lenders to make sure the system would work. We found out they have made it work, and there are sufficient resources that we are going to continue to give to these lenders to make them profitable. But we can take the resources we have here and target those resources to the students who need it the most. We believe very deeply that educational opportunity is key to individuals' future and our country's future. If we are going to be one country, as I think all of us believe we should be, we do not want to have the kinds of divisions that are increasingly putting pressure on the young people of this country at the present time. This legislation is doing a very important job in trying to address that situation and, again, I thank all of our colleagues because we have been able to, as Senator Enzi realizes, on the committee, in the areas of education, we have been able to rise above the issues of partisanship. We have had wonderful chairmen, including Senator Stafford from Vermont, and we had Senator Pell from Rhode Island, and we had our colleague, Senator Gregg, and Senator Enzi has been chairman of those committees. We have areas where we have our differences, although I must say I think on our committee we try to find common ground in areas of difference. In the area of education, which is so important across the board, we have worked very closely together. I think this legislation represents a splendid opportunity to make a real difference for families in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will just look at this chart. You mentioned about the public defender--annual salary, this will be a public defender in Indiana. Here is the average loan debt, probably as a public defender. The average is $19,000 but probably $51,000 if that person has gone to law school. We save them $2,800 a year in loan payments. If we do this for 10 years, I show the Senator from Iowa, if we do it for 10 years, their loan forgiveness is $33,000--$33,000 is forgiven.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12 noon today be for debate with respect to the Nelson-Burr amendment, with the time until then equally divided and controlled in the usual form; with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that the vote with respect to the amendment occur upon disposition of the Kennedy amendment which is covered under a previous unanimous consent agreement; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote; and that the second and third votes be 10 minutes in duration.